Nullification of Constitution by Elected/Appointed State Officials

[USU78]

Scott, in another thread, stated this:

Quote

As for Prop 8, proponents were hindered by the refusal of the California state government to defend it in court, as it was statutorily obligated to do. As Elder Oaks has pointed out, a state government cannot properly refuse to do such a thing any more than a county clerk can properly refuse to issue marriage licenses to a homosexual couple.

We had, as all knows, a State government refuse to enforce its own constitution, established by plebescite, against a legal challenge in federal court.  This amounts to a nullification of the law by persons, elected and appointed, to uphold the law of that State as required by their oaths.  By taking sides against the electorate and in favor of one's own political pet group, one acts with, in my view, tyrannical intent:  I myself want this; therefore, I may ignore the plebs' action to obtain what I want for "our side."

Is this a good thing in general, or only when "our side" wins?

USU "Thinking of Arkansas refusing to enforce a certain SCOTUS decree back in the day  ...  and having troops called out to enforce it" 78

[thesometimesaint]

Ever hear of Prosecutorial Discretion?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Ever hear of Prosecutorial Discretion?

Questions.  Questions.

Did Arkansas have the sovereign discretion not to enforce Brown v Board?

Are you arguing that State Officials, specifically the Governor and Attorney General, exercised prosecutorial discretion in refusing to defend the result of the plebescite? 

Are you arguing that the fine Governor and Attorney General of the fine State of California, by their inaction, were not taking sides in the dispute?

Are you quite sure you understand what "prosecutorial discretion" means?

tss, I accuse you of rooting for your socialist [small "s" intentional] home team and not acting in accordance with principles.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Ever hear of Prosecutorial Discretion?

You said this on the other thread, with no explanation whatever, as though your thinking were self-evident, which it isn't.

In this instance, the state of California was in the role of defendant, not prosecutor, as a state constitutional measure decided by the California electorate was being challenged in federal court.

So how could the state government officials be exercising "prosecutorial discretion" in a case where they were not in the role of prosecutor? That's a contradiction in terms.

I tend to think, like USU78, that you don't fully comprehend what "prosecutorial discretion" means.

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Questions.  Questions.

Did Arkansas have the sovereign discretion not to enforce Brown v Board?

Are you arguing that State Officials, specifically the Governor and Attorney General, exercised prosecutorial discretion in refusing to defend the result of the plebescite? 

Arkansas technically did have the right to refuse but since it was federal law the federal government also had the right to compel them to comply.

plebiscites over laws are a terrible idea. Exhibit A: California, state of my birth.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Arkansas technically did have the right to refuse but since it was federal law the federal government also had the right to compel them to comply.

plebiscites over laws are a terrible idea. Exhibit A: California, state of my birth.

A bad idea because Socialist elected officials will inevitably nullify the plebescite?

A bad idea because property tax revenues don't go up and the socialist agenda doesn't get adequately funded, leading, potentially, to Chapter 9 filings by municipalities and counties?

A bad idea when the Socialist side wins in the plebescite?

A bad idea in general because Heaven Forfend!  the largely conservative plebs cannot be trusted with lawmaking, only the enlightened Socialists?

Explicate, s'il vous plait!

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

A bad idea because Socialist elected officials will inevitably nullify the plebescite?

A bad idea because property tax revenues don't go up and the socialist agenda doesn't get adequately funded, leading, potentially, to Chapter 9 filings by municipalities and counties?

A bad idea when the Socialist side wins in the plebescite?

A bad idea in general because Heaven Forfend!  the largely conservative plebs cannot be trusted with lawmaking, only the enlightened Socialists?

Explicate, s'il vous plait!

A bad idea because people are idiots. So are our leaders but some of them are at least moderately informed idiots and have some idea of what is and is not possible.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A bad idea because people are idiots. So are our leaders but some of them are at least moderately informed idiots and have some idea of what is and is not possible.

And the people clever enough to be elected/appointed:  are they idiots as well?

Careful, this is a trick question.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And the people clever enough to be elected/appointed:  are they idiots as well?

Careful, this is a trick question.

Yes and no. A trick question deserves a trick answer.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Yes and no. A trick question deserves a trick answer.

And not at all inconsistent with my point:  the Socialist worships the "best and brightest" inside the State (however the "best and brightest" happened to get inside) and his ability to use g-dlike power to solve all the world's ills by fiat.  Yet when he employs the fiat to devalue the plebs outside the State (those idiots who pay for his place of high honor and power), he proves himself far worse, in my view, than the idiots who endure his tyranny. 

When he nullifies their action, he devalues them:  when he devalues them, he aggrandizes himself and his pets:  when he aggrandizes himself and his pets, he makes himself a tyrant.

Yet he's just as dumb as the dumbest schmuck in the deli.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

And not at all inconsistent with my point:  the Socialist worships the "best and brightest" inside the State (however the "best and brightest" happened to get inside) and his ability to use g-dlike power to solve all the world's ills by fiat.  Yet when he employs the fiat to devalue the plebs outside the State (those idiots who pay for his place of high honor and power), he proves himself far worse, in my view, than the idiots who endure his tyranny. 

When he nullifies their action, he devalues them:  when he devalues them, he aggrandizes himself and his pets:  when he aggrandizes himself and his pets, he makes himself a tyrant.

Yet he's just as dumb as the dumbest schmuck in the deli.

I am not a socialist but I like Bernie.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

 

Yet he's just as dumb as the dumbest schmuck in the deli.

Oh no! Not a shemozzle!

 

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, USU78 said:

Questions.  Questions.

Did Arkansas have the sovereign discretion not to enforce Brown v Board?

Are you arguing that State Officials, specifically the Governor and Attorney General, exercised prosecutorial discretion in refusing to defend the result of the plebescite? 

Are you arguing that the fine Governor and Attorney General of the fine State of California, by their inaction, were not taking sides in the dispute?

Are you quite sure you understand what "prosecutorial discretion" means?

tss, I accuse you of rooting for your socialist [small "s" intentional] home team and not acting in accordance with principles.

How to be more clear. Hmmm. The Feds are the supreme law of the land according to the US Constitution. So NO, individual states can not refuse to enforce federal law. That is the very essence of Nullification.

During the Prop 8 litigation the USSC had not yet decided. So California's AG and Governor were within their Constitutional Authority to decline enforcement. Once the USSC decided the state of California had no other option but to obey.

Whether they were taking sides is immaterial. Prosecutorial discretion is virtually unlimited in scope.

SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/

USU78, If you really want to get into ad hominem attacks I can go their. But you won't like the outcome.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not a socialist but I like Bernie.

I like Bernie just fine, too, but just as a dinner companion.  I'd be horrified to find he'd been elected president.

Not to get political.

But USU78's point is entirely valid.  The State had the duty to defend it's own constitution, even if certain officials of the State didn't like the particular provision of it that was in question by the Feds.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm a moderately conservative liberal.

[Mark Beesley]

I'm moderately astounded that this is still a topic.  The "duty" of the State of California offiicials to defend Prop 8 was litigated and decided.  We may not like the result, but we live with it and adjust.  Same sex marriage is here to stay, whether we agree or not, so we live with it and adjust.  Lots of decisions are made that we disagree with on a personal level.  For the the sake of our own peace of mind , we need to live with diasappointment and . . . Yep, adjust.   Sometimes the adjustment is nothing more than a resolve to not cmplain any more.  For example, I have quit complaining about the portion of my taxes used to build and maintain bomb, bullets, and all manner of weapons of war.  And I resist chiding my more hawkish friends and family for their reliance on the arm of flesh.  If we as a country have become so wicked that the Lord would allow others to come and bring us into bondage, we only exacerbate the problem by choosing to live by the sword to "protect" our freedoms, which protection has turned into wars of aggression.  But that is more than enough said.  I'll adjust.  🙃

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

Was Loving v Virginia decided correctly in your opinion?

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

USU78:

Was Loving v Virginia decided correctly in your opinion?

I'm not USU78, but that's the old apple vs orange red herring. 

It's immaterial.  Subject matter is not the same.  You can use the same argument that you're implying to justify my marriage to the Statue of Liberty.  And it would be just as invalid and just as immaterial.  Don't bother arguing with me.  I'm not entertaining any doubts that you could use to pry me away from the facts of the matter. Race is not gender.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The "duty" of the State of California offiicials to defend Prop 8 was litigated and decided.

CFR.

[USU78]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Feds are the supreme law of the land according to the US Constitution. So NO, individual states can not refuse to enforce federal law. That is the very essence of Nullification.

You are quite missing the point.  We are focusing on the point in time after Prop 8 passed and was challenged in Court and CA state officials refused to defend the lawsuit, leading to a citizens group seeking to defend the law against the aggressors. 

That citizens group was later found by the SCOTUS to lack standing to defend, and so the lawsuit's result could not be looked at by the SCOTUS.

Those State officials nullified that State's electorate for political purposes, and in doing so took the part of a favored minority of that State's electorate over the unfavored majority of that State's electorate.  The feds don't figure here for purposes of our discussion.

Prove my accusation wrong:  agree that state officials are bound to uphold the constitution and laws of their state, and when they fail so to do, they become tyrants.

[cinepro]

On 4/18/2016 at 11:40 AM, USU78 said:

Scott, in another thread, stated this:

We had, as all knows, a State government refuse to enforce its own constitution, established by plebescite, against a legal challenge in federal court.  This amounts to a nullification of the law by persons, elected and appointed, to uphold the law of that State as required by their oaths.  By taking sides against the electorate and in favor of one's own political pet group, one acts with, in my view, tyrannical intent:  I myself want this; therefore, I may ignore the plebs' action to obtain what I want for "our side."

Is this a good thing in general, or only when "our side" wins?

USU "Thinking of Arkansas refusing to enforce a certain SCOTUS decree back in the day  ...  and having troops called out to enforce it" 78

 

Can you clarify the terms under which The State of California (i.e. the governor and attorney general) are obligated to defend a state law being challenged in court?  

And if the situation were reversed and it were a liberal proposition being sued against and a conservative state government declining to defend it, would there be as much indignation?

Edited April 19, 2016 by cinepro

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

And if the situation were reversed and it were a liberal proposition being sued against and a conservative state government declining to defend it, would there be as much indignation?

Yes. Except everyone's role would be reversed. 

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Can you clarify the terms under which The State of California (i.e. the governor and attorney general) are obligated to defend a state law being challenged in court?  

And if the situation were reversed and it were a liberal proposition being sued against and a conservative state government declining to defend it, would there be as much indignation?

Can you clarify where it is the case anywhere in the Anglo-American world that a government is permitted to allow default judgments to be entered against it?

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

You are quite missing the point.  We are focusing on the point in time after Prop 8 passed and was challenged in Court and CA state officials refused to defend the lawsuit, leading to a citizens group seeking to defend the law against the aggressors. 

That citizens group was later found by the SCOTUS to lack standing to defend, and so the lawsuit's result could not be looked at by the SCOTUS.

Those State officials nullified that State's electorate for political purposes, and in doing so took the part of a favored minority of that State's electorate over the unfavored majority of that State's electorate.  The feds don't figure here for purposes of our discussion.

Prove my accusation wrong:  agree that state officials are bound to uphold the constitution and laws of their state, and when they fail so to do, they become tyrants.

One of the first hits on google seems to indicate that this really isn't a matter that's been settled and it pretty much depends on the attorney general and their own political viewpoint. Quite fascinating. 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, mtomm said:

One of the first hits on google seems to indicate that this really isn't a matter that's been settled and it pretty much depends on the attorney general and their own political viewpoint. Quite fascinating. 

Yes it is, and it behooves us to be principled in our analysis and not just drop into kneejerk party mode.  To do so is to be unprincipled.